DEVELOPMENT FINANCING CONFERENCE: THE INEQUALITY-POVERTY NEXUS

By Cecilia Alemany Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

MONTEVIDEO, Nov 18 2008 (IPS) - From 29 November to 2 December 2008 in Doha, Qatar, the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development will be reviewed. It should be an opportunity to establish the foundation for a more inclusive and democratic international financial system, write Cecilia Alemany, manager at the Association for Women\’s Rights in Development (AWID) and Anne Schoenstein, a consultant with the Association for Women\’s Rights in Development (AWID). In this article, the author writes that at the Qatar conference there will not be a Declaration of Consensus, only an Outcome document, because among other actors the US has been blocking any substantive commitment or binding obligation on development. Even with the more progressive new US president, the underlying mechanisms of the \”development industry\” or the \”development business\” are still based on a set of hypothesis and principles that undermine the right to development and to self-determination. Changing them will require true political will. For women\’s rights groups and advocates, the Monterrey Consensus did not go far enough, and we may experience the same disappointment with the Doha Review Conference if there is no reference to clear gender equality commitments. We need a new kind of leadership from those groups that were historically marginalised, including women. The new political landscape in the US is an opportunity and an optimistic sign in this sense. Inclusiveness is not just \”politically correct\”; now it is realpolitik.

Six years ago heads of state and government from around the world signed the Monterrey Consensus at the first UN international conference on Financing for Development. This was the first time that the UN entered this field, which up to then had been essentially the exclusive domain of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In that period, the early days of the September 11 era, a “new” international scenario was emerging. Thus far the XXI century is more dynamic (and uncertain) than any previous period. Today we are facing a new world even if the wars led by the US are not over. We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the 1929 crash, with impacts that we cannot yet understand. Moreover, the reactions to the crisis from most of the developed country governments contradict all the free market and minimal state theories they imposed on developing countries in the last decades. And in this new environment, with the erosion of US legitimacy as an international power, Barack Obama won the US presidency.

The main goals of the Monterrey Consensus remain pertinent, but the political and other means needed to achieve them are still just promises. The international community has yet to deliver on poverty eradication, sustained economic growth (for all), and sustainable development.

The Monterrey Consensus aimed to enhance “the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial, and trading systems in support of development”. But today the system is collapsing. The high number of people living in poverty, many of them women, is only one sign of the structural failures of the international financial system.

The current financial crisis is an institutional crisis, a crisis of the international system designed after World War II. However, the paradigm promoted by the World Bank and the IMF still survives and will appear in the Monterrey Consensus Review. Transnational corporations, speculators, big players’ interests, the World Bank, and the IMF have been setting the rules related to financing for the last decades. Their lack of accountability, transparency, and legitimacy is evident in the current crisis scenario.

At the Qatar conference, the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus will be reviewed. There will not be a Declaration of Consensus, only an Outcome document, because the US, among other actors, has been blocking any substantive commitment or binding obligation on development -as well as trying to reduce the political relevance of the UN.

Even with the more progressive new US President, the underlying mechanisms of the “development industry” or the “development business” are still based on a set of hypothesis and principles that undermine the right to development and to self-determination. Changing them will require true political will.

During the preparation and negotiation process to generate the Doha Outcome Document, women’s groups were disappointed by the fact that even though most political actors understand that the way to reduce poverty is through reducing inequalities, they do not act accordingly. This is, however, imperative, especially for many women and other marginalised people because they are particularly affected by poverty and inequality given their socially-constructed role and position within most societies (including in politics, business, the community, and the family).

Unfortunately, most political actors easily delete references to gender mainstreaming or the need to give full attention to development goals when designing and implementing development strategies. So far the negotiations in Doha are about the development vision of bureaucrats and political leaders. At the same time the establishment now accepts the need for a new multilateralism and the understanding that growth itself does not ensure the reduction of poverty and inequality or even economic stability and sustainability.

For women’s rights groups and advocates, the Monterrey Consensus did not go far enough, and we may experience the same disappointment with the Doha Review Conference if there is no reference to clear gender equality commitments.

The development model is in crisis and there is no easy answer to how to build a more inclusive and democratic international system. We need a new kind of leadership from those groups that were historically marginalised, including women. The new political landscape in the US is an opportunity and a cause for optimism in this sense. Inclusiveness is not just “politically correct”; now it is realpolitik. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)